Cruelty And Desertion Not Established | Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Divorce Appeal | Not Taking Care Of In-Laws And Alleged Misconduct Insufficient To Prove Grounds For Dissolution
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Court upheld the Family Court’s judgment, concluding that the appellant failed to establish any legal ground warranting dissolution of marriage. The Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in the Family Court’s findings, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of by the Court.
The appellant, a serving Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Jharkhand Police, filed the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The appeal challenged the judgment dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, whereby his petition seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 26.02.1996 according to Hindu rites. The couple lived together and were blessed with three children. The appellant alleged that the respondent never adjusted with his joint family, did not take care of his ailing parents, and created disturbances on trivial matters. He further claimed that he took a friendly loan of ₹3,40,000 for performing the death ceremonies of his parents, while the respondent pressurized him to buy ornaments and later threatened him.
According to the appellant, the respondent displayed cruel behaviour, made conspiracies against him, and deserted him since 15.11.2016, thereby severing the marital relationship. He claimed she began living separately, leading to desertion. He also alleged that she was involved in an extramarital affair and threatened him through associates.
The divorce petition was filed in 2019 after years of separation and strained relations. The Family Court framed five issues, particularly regarding cruelty and desertion. Evidence was adduced from both sides, including witnesses for the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant produced four witnesses, including himself. The witnesses stated that estrangement prevailed, with the respondent allegedly preventing the appellant from caring for his parents and making threats. However, none of the witnesses, except the appellant, had direct knowledge of incidents. The Family Court observed contradictions and insufficiency in the evidence.
The respondent-wife, examined as RW-1, stated that the appellant developed an illicit relationship with another woman and neglected his responsibilities. She maintained that she was still willing to live with him but had to approach the court for maintenance. She denied all allegations of cruelty or desertion and clarified that she continues to live at the appellant’s paternal home with their children, while he lives separately.
The Family Court, upon evaluating the evidence, concluded that neither cruelty nor desertion was established and dismissed the divorce petition.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court, alleging that the Family Court erred in appreciating the evidence and that the judgment suffered from perversity.
The respondent’s counsel defended the Family Court’s findings, asserting that the allegations lacked evidentiary support and that the judgment was reasoned and valid.
The Division Bench examined the records and the findings of the Family Court in detail. It recorded:
"The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion, i.e., by filing an application under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, issues have been framed."
Regarding cruelty, the Court stated: "The main ground of cruelty has been taken of not taking care of the in-laws... The said ground has been disbelieved by the learned Family Judge."
The Court observed that the appellant’s father-in-law died within 6-7 months of the marriage and the mother-in-law in 2016. The divorce petition was filed in 2019. It recorded: "The sole ground, therefore, cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the ground of cruelty of not taking care of the in-laws since the in-laws had already died way back before filing of the suit."
As for desertion, the Court recorded: "The desertion will be said to be desertion if either of the party, on his/her own wish, has left the matrimonial house. But, no such evidence has been produced by the appellant/petitioner to prove the element of desertion showing that the respondent-wife has left her matrimonial house."
The Court referred to precedents on the interpretation of cruelty and desertion, including judgments in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, and Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky. It noted that for cruelty to be established, conduct must be grave and weighty, and for desertion, intention to permanently end cohabitation must be proved. The Court held:
"This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment."
Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the Family Court's judgment.
The Court observed that the ground of desertion had also been taken, but the definition and interpretation of desertion made it clear that it would only be established if either party, on their own wish, had left the matrimonial house.
It was noted that no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the respondent-wife had left her matrimonial house.
The learned Family Judge, after consideration of both issues, found no ground for dissolution of marriage and dismissed the suit. The Court, upon consideration of the entire matter, held that the appellant had failed to establish the element of perversity in the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the instant appeal was dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
Case Title: XXXXX v. YYYYY
Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:12141-DB
Case Number: F.A. No. 172 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rajesh Kumar
[Read/Download order]
